Ecosystem Nexus in the Blue Nile Ethiopia презентация

Nile / Ethiopia

Holger Hoff
Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)

Lucia de Strasser
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)

Bahir Dar, 27 March 2013

tradeoffs, synergies

Why do we need it ?

increasing demand for natural resources,
for food, energy and other human securities, threatens environmental sustainability , ecosystem services
-> need for sustainable intensification
-> need for coherent policies across scales
-> to be supported by multi-scale, cross-sectoral analyses

How to implement it?

mostly through case studies: Burkina Faso (food-biofuel) , Mauritius (sugarcane for biofuel), MENA (climate adaptation – mitigation), California, Blue Nile

support

WEAP / LEAP (AEZ)

to be developed jointly with stakeholders and scientists

simulating long-term resource allocations,
integrated network-based demand and supply analysis,
transparent, flexible, user-friendly, low initial data requirements,
similar user interfaces and terminologies,
widely used in ministries, authorities, bureaus, NGOs, universities etc: 100s of users worldwide.
for free to non-profit developing country institutions
frequent trainings in Sweden, but also in various regions (plus online tutorials and handbooks)

GIS-based, graphical drag & drop interface
Additional simulation modeling possible: land use effects, groundwater dynamics, crop water use, crop productivity, water quality, reservoir management & hydropower financial module

end-use and device.
Users can edit the tree on-screen using standard editing functions (copy, paste, drag & drop)
Structure can be detailed and end-use oriented, or aggregate (e.g. sector by fuel).

(i.e. economic not financial analysis).
User specifies boundaries
Cost-benefit analysis calculates the Net Present Value (NPV) of the differences in costs between scenarios.

Small island with clear boundaries- data availability
Producer and exporter of sugar (occupying 80 % cultivated land area)
Dependent on fuel imports for its energy requirement
Highly vulnerable to climate change
Nexus („CLEWs“) approach formally adopted for national policies by the government

country
Population increase and urbanization (centralized demand)
Dependence on one main export crop (cotton)
Continuous deforestation
No own fuel resource – Dependence on wood for as energy source
Agricultural intensification on suitalble land for food security, biofuel production and reduced emissions.

Previous case studies (KTH, SEI) Burkina Faso

19% of California’s electricity consumption
Importation of water from North to South California
Proposed scenario: introduce a share of water supply (5%) from desalination of sea water
Result: quantified tradeoff: increased energy consumption vs water saved (not imported)

Previous case studies (KTH, SEI) California

activities, plans and strategies e.g. GTP & CRGE: agricultural intensification / commercialization / irrigation,
renewables / hydropower / bioenergy crops
Identifying pathway to achieve goals such as:
improved water use efficiency (GTP)
avoiding further cropland expansion (CRGE)

For discussion: how are the national goals broken down into Blue Nile planning and management?

e.g.
small- vs. large-scale storage
water for hydropower vs. water for agriculture
water for biofuels vs. water for food production
energy for agricultural intensification

goal: „improved landscape configurations“ for resilience

Application of the nexus concept to the Ethiopian Blue Nile

Model on WEAP and eventually with Land Use using GAEZ)

Disaggregation of data from Blue Nile Region

Initial LEAP model for Ethiopia / Blue Nile

tradeoffs

steering group (CRGE)